Saturday, 30 October 2004

Every Vote Counts and Matters

The World Expects...
Once again we come to the cross-roads of democracy where the government of the people, for some people by fewer rich people is decided by many people who should realise that it affects all people.
Once too often I have heard of a group of people called the American People a constituency that the Presidency represents by adopting a theocratic resolve on all social issues and blinding stubbornness oblivious of the realities of the Iraqi quagmire.
However, let us get to the issues starting with a simple analogy and its unfortunate lack of correlation.
This Security Issue
For instance, if I had a security firm that signed a long-term contract to offer services to protect life, property and security and then within the first year of the contract, we suffered loss of life, property and security, would I be renewing that contract or seeking better services?
Then after the catastrophic losses, the security firm resurfaces as a reborn firm with a new mission statement, new vision and probably a lot of restrictions to my freedom and access to my associates whilst chasing after the known people who make me suffer such loss, for a while I am content with all that activity.
Afterwards, the security firm decides to go after persons who had no relationship to the original perpetrators of the serious crime on the premise that a relationship might develop between these persons and the persons who caused us such great harm - I think I should be a bit suspect of this whole idea. What about the guys who did all the damage, who is going after them?
The retort comes back, that most of their employees are imprisoned on some secluded island out of reach of the law and reason. Really?
Fine, than news comes back from a number of auditors that the security firm was lax in many aspects that could have prevented the loss, that the decision to divert resources to un-associated issues was neither necessary nor useful in pursuing the aim of capturing the original perpetrators.
We are now left with a bigger contract bill and a greater loss of life, property and security and no particular idea of how to extricate ourselves from any of the issues in which we have embedded ourselves with such optimism but pessimistic realities.
The truth of the matter
  • When was American attacked?
  • Who was in charge when America was attacked?
  • Following the analogy, if this not a case of bolting the doors after the horses has bolted, what is?
  • The horses are lost but the stable is secure, fine, but what was the stable built for?
  • Was Iraq implicated in the September 11th attacks?
  • Should not the war on terror first have dealt with Al Qaeda before looking further afield to prosecute other ideological aims?
  • Is it really worth all that has now been lost?
Probable answers
America was attacked on September the 11th in the year 2001 during the term of President George W. Bush who happens to be the head of the security firm that was supposed to be protecting the full interests of the American people - life, property and security.
Surely, the presidency of George W. Bush was energised after the attack, but it is now on record that the guard was dozing off at the sentry leaving America vulnerable to the attack it suffered.
More so, his 8 months in office had produced landmark issues of isolation, tax cuts, pandering to special interests and so on - meaning he could have done something about security and putting Al Qaeda in the cross-hairs.
Any security guard would sound tougher and act tougher if caught to have failed on the job, unfortunately the horses that bolted are completely lost, to suggest you have not been attacked again does not preclude that fact that you are attacked on his watch.
A security guard should be up to the job from the first day and through out the term of the contract - this one failed.
The war on terror should first and always have been the war on that terrorist Osama bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda organisation. Iraq could have come a lot later with better reasons. But would a second term yield a war in Iran and North Korea which are fledging nuclear powers?
Oh yes! Go after the terrorists in their backyard and you can only sponsor that with a bigger deficit and definitely the return of the DRAFT. The draft Bush, Cheney and Clinton so successfully avoided, by playing the system. People who have not experience of the horror of war and prosecute wars are reckless as best and plain tyrannical at worst.
Just the numbers would do, over $120 billion, over 1,000 dead American sons and daughters, over 29,000 wounded soldiers, over 100,000 dead Iraqis, a 52 card deck of former Iraqi officials, one free Osama bin Laden, one free Mullah Omar of the Taliban regime, one terrorist den of Iraq, one greatest opium exporting country of Afghanistan, 2 emerging nuclear powers of North Korea and Iran and one weaponless Libya.
All for almost 4,000 dead Americans, the twin towers and 3 lost airplanes?
At one time someone should start counting the cost and that is NOW.
The World Really Expects...
Americans need to look beyond the local issues, "Act Local but Think Global", this election is a world election, we need someone the rest of the almost 6 billion people of the earth would feel comfortable with, who would promote both national and international peace without infuriating others who take an opposing view - a diplomat.
The world needs a strong American economy with sound principled economic policies grounded making for a surplus rather than an unprecedented budget deficit that leaves the unborn already saddled with debt.
That used to be the forte of third-world impoverished and indebted Bantustans - an economics.
The world needs a leader of the United States that sees the US as uniting the people and not in the context of "us and them", polarising every opinion that comes into the public debate - a leader of great persuasion.
Every American who can vote should and must vote for one of the persons vying for Presidency and every vote counts. Ralph Nader is not running for Presidency, he is not on enough state ballots to seize any electoral seats of any significance. That would be a wasted vote.
In fact, Ralph Nader and his supporters should vote for one of the proper Presidential candidates, either George W. Bush or John Kerry.
We cannot afford more of the same, nor can we afford a more aggressive more of the same for another four years, we probably need change and good change at that, regardless of the some inkling that the alternative is not as persuasive as he should be.
Get out and vote and do it right - the world expects and your conscience expects.

No comments: